Flexible bandwidth allocation in high-capacity grooming switches

ABSTRACT

A method and apparatus for flexible sharing of bandwidth in switches with input buffering by dividing time into a plurality of frames of time slots, wherein each frame has a specified integer value of time slots. Counters associated with the input-output queues of the switches are loaded with a negotiated integer value once per frame. The inputs sequentially select available outputs to which the inputs send packets in specified future time slots. Priority is given to input-output queues with counters having positive values. The selection of outputs by the inputs is done using a pipeline technique and a schedule is calculated within multiple time slots. The counters for selected queues are then decremented by 1.

REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATONS

This is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/881,038,filed Jun. 15, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,072,353. The present applicationclaims priority to Provisional Patent Applications No. 60/211,474 filedJun. 15, 2000; 60/213,250 filed Jun. 22, 2000, and 60/260,526 filed Jan.10, 2001.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to the field of computerpacket-switched networks and more particularly, is directed to a methodand apparatus for flexible bandwidth allocation in a high capacitypacket switch.

As known in the prior art, packet switches transfer packets from theirinputs to the specified outputs. It is important to be able to flexiblyshare an output bandwidth among the inputs. In other words, inputsshould be guaranteed to get the negotiated bandwidth even if some otherinputs are overloaded. A switch with output buffers is usually a set ofstatistical multiplexers. Packets coming from different inputs arestored in the output buffer and transmitted according to some schedulingpolicy. For example, a weighted round-robin (WRR) policy would provideto the inputs their reserved bandwidth shares. However, the capacity ofa switch with output buffers is limited by the speed of the outputbuffers.

In contrast, the capacity of a switch with input buffers is not limitedsimilarly because packets are stored at the line bit-rate. Switches withinput buffers can provide a much higher switching capacity which is whythey have attracted much interest recently in the published literature.In a switch with input buffers, a packet compete not only with thepackets of other inputs bound for the same output, but also with thepackets of the same input bound for other outputs.

Several proposed protocols calculate the maximal matching between inputsand outputs that does not leave input-output pair unmatched if there istraffic between them. However, these protocols do not provide flexiblesharing of the output bandwidth among the inputs in a switch with inputbuffers. Accordingly, there is a need in the art for an improved methodand apparatus for such purposes.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, it is an overall object of the present invention to obviatethe above-noted shortcomings and disadvantages of bandwidth allocationprotocols in packet switches known in the prior art.

A further object of the present invention is to provide an improvedmethod and apparatus for bandwidth allocation in packet switches.

Another object of the present invention is to an provide an improvedmethod and apparatus for fast bandwidth allocation in circuit switches.

These another objectives of the present invention are achieved by thepresent invention as described below.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The novel features of the present invention are set out withparticularity in the appended claims, but the invention will beunderstood more fully and clearly from the following detaileddescription of the invention as set forth in the accompanying drawingsin which:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram for a central controller for the PIM protocol;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram for a central controller for the RRGSprotocol;

FIG. 3 is a time diagram for a switch controller in accordance with thepresent invention;

FIG. 4 is a time diagram for a the switch controller in accordance withanother embodiment of the present invention; and

FIG. 5 is a time diagram for a switch controller in accordance with afurther embodiment of the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

In accordance with the present invention, a new protocol is proposedwhich is simpler than the previously proposed ones, and can,consequently support packet switching of higher capacity. The maximalmatching of inputs and outputs not only removes the head-of-line (HOL)blocking, but also simplifies the flexible bandwidth sharing in a switchwith input buffers.

The simplest way to share the bandwidth in a switch with input bufferingis to precompute a schedule in advance based on the reservations made ina connection set up phase. Time is divided into frames that consist oftime slots. The schedule determines input-output pairs that will beconnected in each time slot of a frame. Each input-output pair isassigned a certain number of time slots within a frame, which ensuresthe requested bandwidth share. It can be shown that requests can beaccommodated as long as

$\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{m}\; a_{im}} \leq F}{and}\;{{\sum\limits_{m}\; a_{mj}} \leq F}{for}{{0 \leq i},{j \leq {N - 1}},}} & (1)\end{matrix}$Where a_(ij) is the number of time slots requested by input-output pair(i, j), F is the frame length, and N is the number of input and outputports. As a result, the bandwidth reserved for input-output pair (i, j)is p_(ij)=a_(ij)/F times the line bit-rate. However, computing theschedule has a complexity on the order of O(FN²), and may becomeimpracticable for the fast varying traffic. For this reason, astatistical matching algorithm has been proposed to arbitrarily sharethe switch capacity. In the statistical matching algorithm, output jgrants input i with probability p_(ij)=a_(ij)/F. Each input chooses oneoutput from which it received a grant in a specified probabilistic way.It has been shown that the statistical matching uses 63% of the totalswitch capacity, or 72% if two iterations are performed. Weightedprobabilistic iterative matching (WPIM) has also been proposed insteadof statistical matching. They argue that the computing of severaldistribution functions within one time slot, as in statistical matching,becomes impractical in high-capacity switches. In WPIM, time is dividedinto frames, and input-output pair (i, j) is assigned a_(ij) creditswithin each frame. Namely, a counter associated to input-output pair (i,j) is set to c_(ij)=a_(ij) at the beginning of a frame, and isdecremented whenever this queue is served. Queues with positive counterscompete for transmission with higher priority. They are rewardedaccording to the parallel iterative matching (PIM) algorithm. Remainingqueues compete for the rest of the bandwidth, and they are againrewarded according to the PIM algorithm. The performance of the WPIMprotocol has been assessed only through simulations.

A scheduling algorithm for flexible bandwidth reservations in a WDMAoptical network with input buffering has also been proposed. If thenumber of wavelengths equals the number of users, such WDMA network isequivalent to a switch with input buffering. In the proposed schedulingalgorithm, each input-output queue is associated with a counter which isincreased in each time slot by p_(ij) and decreased by 1 if this queuehas been served. Queues with positive counters compete for service, andthey are served according to some efficient maximal weighted matchingalgorithm. For example, queues are considered for service in the orderin which their counters decrease. Since it processes N² input-outputpairs, this algorithm can also become a bottleneck in high-capacityswitches. It was shown in that this algorithm guarantees 50% of theswitch capacity.

In accordance with the present invention, new protocol, the weightedround-robin greedy scheduling (WRRGS), that provides flexible bandwidthsharing in switches with terabit capacity. Terabit switches involve morethan 100 ports, line bit-rates as high as 10 Gb/s, and processing times(equal to packet transmission times) of 10-100 ns. Our approach issimilar to the WPIM, only it is based on the round robin greedyscheduling (RRGS) protocol instead of the PIM. In this way, the WRRGSimplementation is further simplified in a comparison to the WPIM. ThePIM algorithm performs 2 log₂ N+2 selections on average in order to findmaximal matching, and involves the full interconnection between inputand output modules of the central controller. On the other side, theRRGS algorithm performs only one selection per time slot, and involvessimple structure of the central controller. So, WRRGS can potentially beused in a switch with a larger number of ports and/or higher linebit-rate, i.e. in a switch with a higher capacity. Applicant has shownthat WRRGS can flexibly allocate at least 50% of the total switchcapacity.

Different architectures for optical packet-switching fabrics have beenproposed. Optical cross-connects capable to reconfigure on thenanosecond time scale seem to be the best candidates for a switch coredue to their simplicity. Namely, the complexity and cost of the opticaltechnology are very high, so that simplicity of the switch core isessential. Key fast switching optical devices that can be used in packetswitches are semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOA) and rapidly tunablelasers.

In the most straightforward design, a packet switch with N inputs and Noutputs requires N² SOAs which are playing the role of gates. However,by combining WDM with space division multiplexing, the overall switchcomplexity measure in the number of SOAs is significantly reduced: thenumber of SOAs in a switch is decreased to 2N√{square root over (N)},while √{square root over (N)} waveguide routers (WGR) of size √{squareroot over (N)}×√{square root over (N)} are added. The 257×256 switchwith the switching time of 5 ns has been demonstrated. If line bitrateis 10 Gbps, short packets of 64 bytes last 64 ns and could besuccessfully switched in the proposed architecture. The total switchingcapacity in that case would be 256×10 Gb/s=2.56 Tb/s.

Alternatively, each input of a packet switch is equipped with the fasttunable laser which is connected to the outputs through large WGR. Fasttunable laser tunes to the wavelength that will be routed by WGR to thepacket designated destination. An 80×80 switch with the switching timeof 100 ns has been demonstrated. Thus, the proposed architecture wouldswitch only longer packets. But, the long switching time is the resultof the driver design and not the laser limitation. It has been shown inthat the same laser can tune among wavelengths within less than 15 ns.

A. Protocol Description

The WPIM and WRRGS protocols compare similarly as the PIM and RRGSprotocols. The PIM protocol consists of several iterations: all inputssend requests to the outputs for which they have packets to send,requested outputs send acknowledgements to their selected inputs, andselected inputs choose one output each. Inputs and outputs that have notbeen selected in the previous iterations compete in the next iterationin the same way.

It has been shown that the PIM algorithm finds a maximal matching afterin log₂ N+¾ iterations on average. Each iteration involves twoselections, and all iterations have to be completed one after anotherwithin one packet transmission time. The planar and two-dimensionaldesigns of the central controller that execute the PIM algorithm areshown in FIG. 1( a) or (b), respectively. Each input module (IM) sends arequest to each output module (OM) and each OM sends an acknowledgementto each IM. There should be 2N² wires connecting input and outputmodules. Such central controllers may become difficult forimplementation as N grows. On the other side, the RRGS protocol consistsof N steps. In the first step, some particular input chooses one of theoutputs for which it has packets to send. In each following step, thenext input chooses one of the remaining outputs for which it has packetsto send. Clearly, RRGS can be implemented by using a pipeline technique.Each step of the algorithm is completed within a separate time slot, andthe algorithm is completed within N time slots. But, in each time slot,all inputs choose outputs for different time slots in future, so, thecentral controller is calculating in parallel schedules for N futuretime slots. As a result, only one selection has to be performed withinone time slot (other N−1 simultaneous selections are done in parallel).

A simple structure of the central controller that executes the RRGSalgorithm is shown in FIG. 2. A round-robin (RR) arbiter associated toeach input module communicates only with the RR arbiters associated toadjacent input modules, and the complex interconnection between inputand output modules is avoided. It stores addresses of the reservedoutputs into the memory (M). Price that RRGS pays for its simplicity isthe additional pipeline delay, which is on average equal to N/2 timeslots. This pipeline delay is not critical for assumed very short packettransmission time.

The RRGS protocol needs to be further modified in order to provideflexible sharing of the total switch capacity. We propose that time isdivided into frames, and counter associated with input-output queues areset to their negotiated values at the beginning of each frame, as inWPIM. Queues with positive counters compete with higher priorityaccording to RRGS. Then, the remaining queues contend according to RRGSfor the available bandwidth.

Consider an N×N cross-bar switch, where each input port i, i ε {0, 1, .. . , N−1}, has N logical queues, corresponding to each of the Noutputs. All packets are fixed size cells. The output of the protocol isa schedule or a set S−{(i, j)| packet will be sent from input i tooutput j}. Note that in each time slot, an input can only transmit onepacket, and an output can receive only one packet. The schedule for thekth time slot is determined as follows:

-   -   Step 1: If k−1 mod F then c_(ij)−a_(ij);    -   Step 2: I_(k)=O_(k)={0, . . . , N−1}; i=0;    -   Step 3: Input i chooses in a round-robin fashion output, if any,        j from O_(k) such that c_(ij)>0, and i there are unscheduled        packets in queue (i,j); if there is no such j go to Step 5.    -   Step 4: Remove j from O_(k) and i from I_(k); Add (i, j) to        S_(k); c_(ij)−c_(ij)−1;    -   Step 5: If i<N−1 choose i=i+1 and go to Step 3;    -   Step 6: i=0;    -   Step 7: If i ε I_(k) choose j from O_(k) for which is has        unscheduled packets to send; if there is no such j go to Step 9;    -   Step 8: Remove j from O_(k) and i from I_(k); Add (i,j) to        schedule S_(k);    -   Step 9: If i<N−1 choose i=i+1 and go to step 7;        In steps 1-5, prioritized packets compete for a service        according to RRGS. Then, in steps 6-9, the remaining packets        compete once again for the given time slot according to RRGS.        Steps 6-9 are optional, they will increase the efficiency of        WRRGS, but introduce an additional average pipeline delay of N/2        time slots. They, actually, represent a service for the        best-effort traffic. Note that in RRGS input 0 is always the        first to pick up an output, while in originally proposed RRGS        all inputs get chance to be the first to choose an output. In        the latter case an input might reserve an output in the earlier        time slot for the latter time slot in future, in other words, it        might interchangeably reserve outputs for different frames. So,        each queue should be assigned multiple counters related to        different frames.        B. Pipelined WRRGS

First consider steps 1-5 of the pipelined WRRGS. WRRGS as outlined inthe previous section is easy to implement by using a pipeline technique.In time slot k, input i reserves an output for time slot k+N−i withinframe ┌(k+N−i)/F┐ where ┌x┐ is the smallest integer not smaller than x.Also, input i resets its counters c_(ij), 0≦j≦N−1, in time slotsmF+1−N+i, where m≧┌N/F┐. Time diagram for this first case of WRRGSapplied in a 5×5 switch is shown in FIG. 3. This figure shows therelation between inputs and the time slots for which they are choosingtheir outputs. For example, in time slot T₅, input I₁ is scheduling orchoosing an output for transmission during time slot T₉, while I₃ isscheduling for time slot T₇ and so on. After it chooses an output, e.g.,input I₁ forwards the control information (about available outputs) toinput I₂ which reserves an output for time slot T₉ in the next time slotT₆. Bold vertical line denotes that input I₀ starts a new schedulechoosing any of the outputs, i.e. it does not receive the controlinformation from input I₄.

Pipelining proposed for RRGS in might be applied to WRRGS in order toequalize inputs. Time diagram for this case of WRRGS applied in a 5×5switch is shown in FIG. 4. Here, in each time slot another input startsa schedule. But, an input might interchangeably reserve outputs fordifferent frames. For example, input I₀ reserves an output for time slotT₁₁ in time slot T₆, and it reserves an output for time slot T₉ in thenext time slot T₇. If the frame length is F=5, then input I_(O)interchangeably reserves outputs for frames F₃ and F₂. For a reasonableassumption that F≧N, an input might interchangeably reserve outputs forat most two consecutive frames. So, each queue should be assignedmultiple counters related to different frames. Depending on the futuretime slot for which an input reserves an output, a specified counter ofthe chosen queue will be decremented by one. Counters are reset every Ftime slots.

Let us now consider all 1-9 steps of the pipelined WRRGS, includingservice of the best-effort traffic. In any time slot k, each inputchooses outputs for two different time slots in future, k+N−i and k+2N−iwithin frames [(k+N−i)/F] and [(k+2N−i)/F]. First, an input reserves anoutput with the positive counter for time k+2N−i then, it reserves anyoutput for time slot k+N−i. Also, input i resets its counters, c_(ij),0≦j≦N−1 in time slots, mF+1−2N+i where m≧┌2N/F┐. FIG. 5 shows the timediagram for all 1-9 steps of WRRGS applied in a 3×3 switch. For example,in time slot T₇, input I₁ chooses one of the available prioritizedoutputs for the time slot T₁₂, and then it chooses any of the availableoutputs for time slot T₉. This is because input I₁ uses its first chanceto schedule for time slot T₁₂ in time slot T₇, and, therefore, itconsiders only queues with positive counters. On the other side, inputI₁ uses the second chance to schedule for time slot T₉ in time slot T₇,and, therefore, it considers all queues for service. It is possible toequalize inputs assuming service of the best-effort traffic as well.

B. Protocol Performance

It is essential to determine the portion of the switch capacity that ascheduling algorithm can share among the inputs. More precisely, we wantto determine the maximum admissible utilization, p, of any input ofoutput line:

$\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{m}\; p_{im}} = {{\frac{1}{F}{\sum\limits_{m}\; a_{im}}} \leq p}},{{\sum\limits_{m}\; p_{mj}} = {{\frac{1}{F}{\sum\limits_{m}\; a_{mj}}} \leq p}},{0 \leq i},{j \leq {N - 1}},} & \;\end{matrix}$which can be guaranteed to the input-output pairs. So, if input-outputpair (i,j) requests a new portion of bandwidth, Δp_(ij), it is acceptedif:

${{{\sum\limits_{m}\; p_{im}} + {\Delta\; p_{ij}}} \leq p},{{{\sum\limits_{m}\; p_{mj}} + {\Delta\; p_{ij}}} \leq p},$and input-output pair (i,j) is assigned Δa_(ij)=┌Δp_(ij)·F┐ new timeslots per frame. We will prove that p=½ for the WRRGS, due to the factthat the RRGS finds a maximal matching between inputs and outputs.

Lemma: 1 The WRRGS protocol ensures a_(ij) time slots per frame toinput-output pair (i,j), 0≦i,j≦N−1, if the following condition holds:

$\begin{matrix}{{{{\sum\limits_{m}\; a_{im}} + {\sum\limits_{m}\; a_{mj}} - a_{ij}} \leq F},} & (2)\end{matrix}$

Proof: Only prioritized packets are being viewed as if WRRGS consistsonly of steps 1-5. Observe time slots within a frame in which eitherinput i or output j are connected, but they are not connected to eachother. In each of these time slots, sum

$s_{ij} = {{\sum\limits_{m \neq j}c_{im}} + \;{\sum\limits_{m \neq j}c_{mj}}}$is greater than 0, and then it is decremented by at least 1. Sum s_(ij)is the largest at the beginning of a frame and from (2), it fulfills:

$\begin{matrix}{{s_{ij} = {{{\sum\limits_{m \neq j}a_{im}} + \;{\sum\limits_{m \neq j}a_{mj}}} \leq {F - a_{ij}}}},} & (3)\end{matrix}$As a conclusion, in at least a_(ij) time slots per frame neither input iis connected to some output other than j, nor output j is connected tosome input other than i. In these time slots, input I reserves output jif there are packets in queue (i,j) and unused credits c_(ij)>0. This isbecause none of the inputs have chosen output j before input i, andinput i is not choosing any other output. Therefore, input i will chooseoutput j as supposed by RRGS, and by any other algorithm that finds amaximal matching between inputs and outputs. In summary, if condition(2) is fulfilled then a_(ij) time slots per frame are guaranteed toinput-output pair (i,j).

Lemma: 2 The WRRGS protocol ensures a_(ij) time slots per frame toinput-output pair (i,j), 0≦i,j≦N−1, if the following condition holds:

$\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{m}a_{im}} \leq \frac{F + 1}{2}},{{\sum\limits_{m}a_{mj}} \leq \frac{F + 1}{2}},} & (4)\end{matrix}$

Proof: From inequality (4), it follows that:

$\left. {{{\sum\limits_{m}a_{im}} + {\sum\limits_{m}a_{mj}}} \leq {F + 1}}\Rightarrow{{{\sum\limits_{m}a_{im}} + {\sum\limits_{m}a_{mj}} - a_{ij}} \leq F} \right.,$since a_(ij)≧1. Because inequality (4) implies inequality (2), Lemma 1directly follows from Lemma 2.

Theorem: The WRRGS protocol ensures p_(ij) of the line bit-rate toinput-output pair (i,j), 0≦i,j≦N−1, if the following condition holds:

$\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{m}\; p_{im}} \leq \frac{1}{2}},{{\sum\limits_{m}\; p_{mj}} \leq \frac{1}{2}},} & (5)\end{matrix}$

Proof: Condition (5) implies (4), so Theorem follows from Lemma 2.

The above theorem holds for the WPIM as well, considering the fact thatPIM finds a maximal matching between inputs and outputs.

Admission control in WRRGS is simple, new a_(ij) time slots are assignedto input-output pair (i,j) if:

$\begin{matrix}{{{{\sum\limits_{m}a_{im}} + {\Delta\; a_{ij}}} \leq \frac{F + 1}{2}},{{{\sum\limits_{m}a_{mj}} + {\Delta\; a_{ij}}} \leq \frac{F + 1}{2}},} & (6)\end{matrix}$Central controller does not have to precompute schedule when a newrequest is admitted. Only input i has to update the value of a_(ij)a_(ij)+a_(ij), 0 j N−1, in order to set the correct counter valuec_(ij)=a_(ij) at the beginning of each frame. Consequently, WRRGS canfollow fast changes of traffic pattern.

Let us assume that N is the number of inputs and outputs, F is the framelength in time slots, v_(b) is the line bit-rate, and Tp is the packettransmission time. The maximum switch throughput is:C=N·v _(b).  (7)The session admission time equals the frame duration which is equal to:·A=F·Tp.  (8)If some input-output pair is assigned one time slot per frame, it isguaranteed the bandwidth of:G=v _(b) ·Tp/(F·T _(p))=v _(b) /F.  (9)So, G is the traffic granularity. The line bit-rate v_(b) and the packettransmission time Tp are limited by the technology, and the frame lengthF can be chosen arbitrarily. There is an apparent trade-off between theadmission time and the traffic granularity: by increasing F thegranularity is refined and the admission time is prolonged and viceversa. For some realistic parameters vb=10 Gbps, Tp=50 ns and chosenF=10⁴, the admission time is A=10⁴·50 ns=500 μs, and the trafficgranularity is G=10 Gbps/10⁴=Mbps. So, the proposed switch can rapidlyallocate bandwidth with fine granularity.

Packets generated by some source for the given destination may have topass through multiple switches. Therefore, the bandwidth should bereserved at each of these switches. With WRRGS, the bandwidthreservation at a particular switch is equivalent to the bandwidthreservation through the input and output lines in question. A switchstores the information about the bandwidth assigned to any input oroutput line, and would advertise this information to the other switchesin the network by using interior gateway protocols (IGP). As has beenshown, half of each link bit-rate can be served. Accordingly, theprocedure for bandwidth reservation in wide area network becomes verysimple. Namely, links with that do not have enough of the spare capacityare removed, and, then, the route is found by using the shortest pathalgorithm, for example. The small number of high-capacity switches wouldallow the fast bandwidth reservation in the wide area network.

The scheduling technique of the present invention can also be used forfast bandwidth reservations in high-capacity circuit switches. Insteadof reserving an output for a single time slot in the future, an inputreserves an output for a certain time slot of each frame. Afterwards,input also terminates the reservation. Unlike prior approaches, inputmodules must store the information about outputs reserved in each timeslot of a frame. An input module also stores a table about its reservedoutput in each time slot of a frame. Moreover, the time slot durationcan be very short in circuit switches, so that a selection takesmultiple, e.g. r, time slots to be calculated. It follows that thebandwidth allocation can be changed in every block of r frames. Bothbandwidth reservation and release are based on credits. At the beginningof a block of frames, each counter is loaded to the difference of thenumber of time slots newly assigned to the input-output pair, and thenumber of time slots released by this pair.

If the counter value is negative, an input-output pair releases itspreviously assigned time slot and increments the counter by one, untilit becomes zero. Otherwise, if the counter value is positive, aninput-output pair reserves time slots in a frame, and decrements thecounter until its value is zero. As before, new bandwidth is allocatedto some input-output pair if inequalities are fulfilled. Inputssequentially release previously assigned time slots and thensequentially reserve admitted time slots, one after another. Pipeliningcan be applied. For example, input i releases an output r(2N−i+1) timeslots in advance, and reserves an output r (N−i+1) time slots inadvance. Input picks up output that has not been reserved in some of theprevious blocks of frames, or by some of the previous inputs whichreserve the outputs for the same time slot in the current block offrames. Note that each node would learn about all released and reservedoutputs for some future time slot exactly r·N time slots after itreleases or reserves an output for that time slot. So, the node canstore the information in its tables before the next block of frames aslong as rN rF, which is the case of interest. In a conclusion, inarbitrary block of frames the scheduler accepts new bandwidth requests,in the next block of frames it calculates new time slot assignment, andfinally in the third block of frames the circuits are switched accordingto the new schedule. Of course, this process is also pipelined so thatthe switch time slot assignment can be changed at the beginning of eachblock of frames.

In accordance with the present invention, a simple way to flexibilityshare bandwidth in switches with input buffering has been described. Thesimplicity of the proposed protocol makes it attractive for switching ofseveral Tb/s, assuming the current technology. It has also been shownthat the proposed WRRGS can share at least 50% of the total switchcapacity.

WRRGS has several desirable features. First, WRRGS algorithm can servetraffic with fast varying bandwidth requirements typical in datanetworks. Second, WRRGS requires simple processing: only two round-robinchoices are to be performed within one time slot. So, it can switchshort cells transmitted at high bit-rates. In addition, a linearstructure of the central controller easily scales to accommodate a largenumber of input and output ports, and provide high switching capacity.

While there are given above certain specific examples of this inventionand its application in practical use, it should be understood that theyare not intended to be exhaustive or to be limiting of the invention. Onthe contrary, these illustrations and explanations herein are given inorder to acquaint others skilled in the art with this invention and theprinciples thereof and a suitable manner of its application in practicaluse, so that others skilled in the art may be enabled to modify theinvention and to adapt and apply it in numerous forms each as may bebest suited to the requirement of a particular use.

1. A method of exchanging information through a packet switch having aplurality of inputs, outputs, with each input having a buffer thatcontains a queue for each of said outputs and a counter associated witheach of said queues, where information sources are coupled to saidswitch, the method comprising the steps of: coupling sources to inputports of said switch and destinations to output ports of said switchwhere total reception capacities of said destinations are less than ahalf of the switch capacity; prior to sending packets, a source of saidsources checks that available reception capacity of an output port ofsaid switch that needs to be used as a destination of said packets isless than half of its maximum capacity; the source sending such packetsto said output port pursuant to a maximal matching algorithm that isimplemented by using a pipeline technique.